This proposal represents an identity crisis for PEAR. Joshua Eichorn recognizes the issue:
Either we have 1 engine and multiple api’s and fix mistakes of the past or we allow competition, this double standard just doesn’t cut it.
Lukas Smith recognizes the issue as well:
So in conclusion if we accept yet another template engine API into PEAR we might as well forget what PEAR currently stands for.
This proposal highlights the cognitive dissonance between the goal of having only one package for a purpose and the reality of already having multiple templating packages in PEAR.
Yet, there are many styles of templates representing different viewpoints and needs. Perhaps this is responsible for the amazing proliferation of template engines in PHP. Can PEAR hope to cover all of these needs with a one size fits all approach? (or even a 5 sizes fit all approach)
Alan Knowles added some Savant features to Flexy and defends fortress PEAR:
Flexy now does _everything_ that Savant does.. – you are basically proposing a competative package, that’s only competative feature, is realistically, that provide a marginally different API…
But Paul Jones, the author of Savant responds by vowing to press forward with the political process:
That is as it may be … however, I am going to continue the proposal and let it come to a vote.
I do not know what this means in terms of PEARs political process. If Savant wins its vote, does this mean that the doors to PEAR are open and that competition is allowed?
Will there be a grand unification of PEAR template engines? Or will the status quo be preserved, confirming the landgrab theory?